NADINE BROWN Complaint Iied

FILED May 17 2013 Bronx County Clerk Index Number: 303170-2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF BRONX
~~~~~=---------------~X
NADINE BROWN
Plaintiff,
Index No:
-against- Summons
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY

POLICE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE OfflCERS
JOHAN AND JANE DOES #1-4
Defendants.
--------------------------~X
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED, to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
the plaintiff a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is served with this summons, to serve a
notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's attorney within twenty (20) days after service, exclusive
of the date of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete ifthis summons is not
personally delivered to you within the state of new York); and in case of you failure to appear or
answer the Plaintiff's complaint, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief
demanded therein.
Plaintiff designates NEW YORK County as the place where the NYPD is headquartered.
Dated: New York, NY 10007

May 16,2013
Re azrali, Esq. ~
....... .....
Attorney for the Plaintiff ·····. ::.l~
-·~
78-27 3'rh Avenue #9 ... -: ·~: ~ ~- P'
c. .. ~.- -<
-··>,_, n
Jackson Heights, NY 11372
Tel: (646) 331-9378
··-
("')-<
·-·
....
-
- .J
-·<
fTI
O·:J ~ r···. ;
.::r-
-
--..-- .s:-..·'
:;;:tT'\
...... _.....
/
•'
-·~
~-
,.I.....-
1
FILED May 17 2013 Bronx County Clerk

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
~==~~==~--------------~X Index No:
NADINE BROWN
Plaintiff,
-against- VERIFIED COMPLAINT
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY

POLICE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE OFFICERS
JOHAN AND JANE DOES #1-4
Defendants.
--------------------------~X
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN, by and through her attorney, REHAN
NAZRALI, ESQ. as and for her complaint against the Defendants, and respectfully shows to
this Court and allege as follows:
PARTIES:
1) That the Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN (Hereinafter "Plaintiff') is present~a

.: .
.~
resident of the city of New York, in the State ofNew York. --~ (I
")< --c --
' .......
2) At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was a resident of the City and 'State of
',_ ·::--1
- .-.-,, :....-~ r··
New York and County of BRONX. ~ .-. -- t _,:·
' '
3) Upon information and belief, that at all times, hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was and still is a municipal corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
4) Upon information and belief, that at all times, hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, its agents, servants and employees operated,
maintained and controlled the Police Department of The City of New York, and all the police
officers thereof, including defendant Police Officers JOHN/JANE DOES 1-4.
2
5) Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on or prior to
February 16, 2012, Defendants, Police Officers JOHN/JANE DOES 1-4, were employed by
Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, as police officers.
6) That Raymond Kelly is the Police Commission of the New York City Police Department
and as such issues policies, procedures, and protocols followed by his officers.
7) That upon information and belief, Police Commissioner Kelly has a policy and custom of
condoning, allowing, and turning a blind eye to NYPD police officers who violate the law by
permitting widespread illegal searches of minority citizens in their stores and persons on the
street which has led to many false arrests and imprisonment of minorities without just cause
therefore.
8) This action arises both under the United States Constitution, particularly under
provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the united states, and
under federal law, particularly the Civil Rights Acts, Title 42 of the United Code, Section 1983,
et seq. and state law for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, negligent hiring, training, and supervision of police officers, permitting
unlawful police practices, and racial discrimination, to name a few of the causes of action.
9) This action also arises under and the rights under the Constitution and laws of the
State ofNew York.
I 0) Each and all of the acts of the Defendants alleged herein were done by the
defendants, their agents, servants and employees, and each ofthem, as individuals and in their
official capacities as police officers under the color and pretense State law, the statuses,
ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the State of New York, the CITY OF NEW
3
YORK and the County of new York, and under the authority of their office as police officers of
said state, City and County.
II) The amount in controversy is $100,000 exclusive of interest.
PENDANT STATE CLAIMS:
12) That Notice of Plaintiffs Claim for Damages for False arrest, violation uf Civil
rights, negligence in hiring and retaining, negligence in performance and negligence in training
and supervising, the nature of the claim and the date of, the time when, the place where and the
manner in which the claim arose was duly served upon the Comptroller Defendant THE CITY
OF NEW YORK on the 16'h day of May 2012.
13) That more than 30 days have elapsed since the Notice of Claim has been served
upon Defendants CITY OF NEW YORK and other defendants and said Defendants have
neglected to or refused to make any adjustments or payment thereof: hence. chis action is
commenced within one year and 90 days after the cause of action arose. That on or about July 16
2012 the 50-hhearing was held, at the and before an employee. agent, and/or representative of
the Defendant, C!TY '-lfNew York.
AS AND FOR :FIRST CAUSE OF" ACTlO!'.

QN .!tEHA~F .9LtL~JJ~:I1.f.LN:-1J.?!.~J~JJRQWJ~
tl\LSE ARREST AND FALSE JMPRJli_Ol\lll:!_!_;_NTl
14) The Plaintiff, NADINE BROWJ\, hereby incorpora<es by rcicience each M,d
ever:, preceding par ag•·ap;, 1-13 of this S'Jmmons a:1d Complcir,; aS mm<gh fully pkac attd ,,,_
a\leged m their er,tirety bebw.
l 5) -.~hat on or about February 16, 2(; 12, Plainti"t, NAHI "'E m;;.OWN (l-le;rein&ftc:r
·'Plaintiff') wa; <lt h<'r pl~ce of busines,, New Appearance Unisex. a hair salon located at 2603
Webster Avenue, E>rc>J1X, t, Y I 0458.
·;
16) That at approximately 3:00P.M in the afternoon thereof of the said subject
aforesaid date, three NYC Police officer(s), two male and one female, entered Plaintiffs place of
business and announced themselves.
17) That the Police claimed that they possessed a search warrant but at no time hereinafter
produced same for Plaintiffs examination.
18) That at said time Plaintiff was weaving the hair of one of her clients.
19) That the Police ordered her to stop working and step to away from her work chair and
station.
20) That Plaintiff complied with the Police's demands and stepped away from her work
Station
21) That Plaintiff was the owner of the business and rented barber or work stations to three
other persons, two of which were also present in Plaintiffs place of business when the Police
entered same.
22) That plaintiff maintained four barber stations at her place of business.
23) That one of the barber stations was unused and unattended by any worker as said renter
of same, an individual by the name of Raymond Thomas, was off and not working on said date.
24) That the Police ordered the two other persons who were found in said establishment and
were working thereto, at said time, to step away from their respective work stations and stand
beside plaintiff.
25) That the two other persons who were working at and for Plaintiff thereto, Kerry-Ann
Henry and Clinton Alexander, both complied with the Police order.
26) That both Kerry-Ann Henry and Clinton Alexander had their own work-stations, which
among other things consisted of a barber's chair and an accompanying locker.
5
27) That the Police began to search Plaintiff's place of business.
28) That the Police searched the entire establishment before they began searching the lockers
situated within and or at the individual barber stations.
29) That the Police searched the locker belonging Raymond Thomas, and found, they
alleged, a plastic bag containing marijuana.
30) That the Police searched the locker belonging to Alexander Clinton, and found, they
31) That the Police also searched the lockers belonging to Plaintiff and Kerry-Ann Henry and
found no contraband, including but not limited to no marijuana.
32) That despite not finding any marijuana in Plaintiff's locker or her person or anywhere
else other than in the two lockers belonging to other work station renters, Plaintiff was cuffed
and taken to an unmarked Police van located on the street outside her place of business and
placed in said crowded van with other persons also similarly cuffed.
33) That plaintiff was made to wait in the van for 45 minutes while she heard police officers
standing outside the van making fun of the whole situation.
34) That the Police brought Plaintiff to the 52"d Precinct where she remained till
approximately II :OOpm when she was taken to Central Booking in Bronx County
35) That Plaintiff remained detained and in Police custody from 3:00pm, Thursday, February
16,2013 through Saturday, February 18,2012 after 5:00pm, at total of approximately 50 hours.
36) That at her arraignment, Plaintiff was charged with possession of marijuana.
37) That Plaintiff pled not guilty.
38) That Plaintiff was released on her own Recognizance
39) That Plaintiff has been back to court at least three additional times.
6
40) That the charges are still pending against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff continues to Plead not
guilty and intends on continuing to plead not guilty to all any criminal charges connected with
the aforesaid arrest.
41) That plaintiff is innocent of all subject charges and will amend this complaint to reflect
said dismissal of all charges against her.
42) That the Defendant, their agents, servants and employees failed to adequately and
properly hire, retain, supervise, discipline or in any other way control the behavior and
performance of the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees.
43) That Defendant, their agents, servants and employees in their failure to hire, train,
supervise and discipline or in any other way control the Defendants in their exercise of their
functions to enforce the law of the state and CITY OF NEW YORK, did act willfully,
wantonly, maliciously and with such reckless disregard for the consequences as to display a
conscious disregard for the dangers of harm and injury to the citizens of the State ofNew York
including, in this instance, the Plaintiff.
44) That the Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was careless and reckless in
hiring and retaining as and for its employees, the above named individuals DEFENDANTS
Police Officers JOHN/JANE DOES 1-4, in that the said Defendants lacked the experience
deportment and ability to be employed by the Defendant; in that the Defendant failed to exercise
due care and caution in its hiring practices, and in particular, in hiring the Defendant employee
who lacked the mental capacity and the ability to function as an employee of the aforementioned
Defendant; in that Defendant's background and in that they hired and retained as an employee of
their police department individuals whose backgrounds contained information (based
information and belief) that revealed said Defendants lacked the maturity, sensibility, and
7
intelligence to be employed by the Defendant; in that the Defendants knew of the lack of ability,
experience, deportment and maturity of said Defendant employee when they hired him to be an
employee; and, in that the Defendants their agents, servants and employees were otherwise
careless, negligent, and reckless.
45) That the aforesaid occurrence, to wit: the false arrest and imprisonment, resulting
injuries to mind and body therefrom, were cause wholly and solely by reason of the negligence
of the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees without any negligence on the part of
Plaintiff.
46) That the acts of the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees in failing to
properly discipline, hire and train their employees, agents, and servants presents a clear and
present danger to the citizens of the City and State of New York.
47) That by reason of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff was injured in mind and body, still
suffers and upon information and belief, will continue to suffer great mental pain, and he was
rendered sick, sore, lame and so remains by the actions of the Defendants, their agents, servants
and employees.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

ON BEHALFOF PLAINTIFF NADINE BROWN
NEGLIGENCE IN TRAINING AND SUPERVISING:
48) The Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN, hereby incorporates by reference each and
every preceding paragraph 1-46 of this Summons and Complaint as though fully plead and re-
alleged in their entirety below.
49) That on or about February 16, 2012, Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN (Hereinafter
"Plaintiff') was at her place of business, New Appearance Unisex, a hair salon located at 2603
Webster Avenue, Bronx, NY 10458.
8
business and armounced themselves.
produced same for Plaintiff's examination.
station.
Station
entered same.
beside plaintiff.
9
61) That the Police began to search Plaintiffs place of business.
64) That the Police searched the locker belonging to Alexander Clinton, and found, they
65) That the Police also searched the lockers belonging to Plaintiff and Kerry-Ann Henry and
found no contraband, including but not limited to no marijuana.
66) That despite not finding any marijuana in Plaintiffs locker or her person or anywhere
else other than in the two lockers belonging to other work station renters, Plaintiff was arrested,
cuffed and taken to an unmarked Police van located on the street outside her place of business
and placed in said crowded van with other persons also similarly cuffed.
67) That plaintiff was made to wait in the van for 45 minutes while she heard police officers
standing outside the van making fun of the whole situation.
approximately 11 :OOpm when she was taken to Central Booking in Bronx County.
69) That Plaintiff remained detained and in Police custody from 3:00pm, Thursday, February
16,2013 through Saturday, February 18,2012 after 5:00pm, at total of approximately 50 hours.
71) That plaintiff pled not guilty
10
74) That the charges are still pending against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff continues to Plead not
guilty and intends on continuing to plead not guilty to all any criminal charges connected with
the aforesaid arrest.
75) That plaintiff is innocent of all subject charges and will amend this complaint to reflect
said dismissal of all charges against her.
76) That the Defendant, their agents, servants and employees failed to adequately and
properly hire, retain, supervise, discipline or in any other way control the behavior and
performance of the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees.
77) That Defendant, their agents, servants and employees in their failure to hire, train,
supervise and discipline or in any other way control the Defendants in their exercise of their
functions to enforce the law of the state and CITY OF NEW YORK, did act willfully,
wantonly, maliciously and with such reckless disregard for the consequences as to display a
conscious disregard for the dangers of harm and injury to the citizens of the State ofNew York
including, in this instance, the Plaintiff.
78) That the Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was careless and reckless in
hiring and retaining as and for its employees, the above named individuals DEFENDANTS
Police Officers JOHN/JANE DOES 1-4, in that the said Defendants lacked the experience
deportment and ability to be employed by the Defendant; in that the Defendant failed to exercise
due care and caution in its hiring practices, and in particular, in hiring the Defendant employee
who lacked the mental capacity and the ability to function as an employee of the aforementioned
Defendant; in that Defendant's background and in that they hired and retained as an employee of
their police department individuals whose backgrounds contained information (based
information and belief) that revealed said Defendants lacked the maturity, sensibility, and
11
intelligence to be employed by the Defendant; in that the Defendants knew of the lack of ability,
experience, deportment and maturity of said Defendant employee when they hired him to be an
employee; and, in that the Defendants their agents, servants and employees were otherwise
careless, negligent, and reckless.
79) That the aforesaid occurrence, to wit: the false arrest and imprisonment, resulting
injuries to mind and body therefrom, were cause wholly and solely by reason of the negligence
of the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees without any negligence on the part of
Plaintiff.
80) That the acts of the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees in failing to
properly discipline, hire and train their employees, agents, and servants presents a clear and
present danger to the citizens ofthe City and State of New York.
81) That by reason of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff was injured in mind and body, still
rendered sick, sore, lame and so remains by the actions of the Defendants, their agents, servants
and employees.
82) That the Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, their agents, servants, and
employees, carelessly and recklessly failed to properly train and supervise their employees, in
particular, the employees named Defendants Police officers JOHN/JANE DOES 1-4 in that
they failed to train their employees to control their tempers and exercise the proper deportment
and temperament; and to otherwise act as reasonable, prudent police officers; failed to give them
proper instruction as to their deportment, behavior, and conduct as representatives of their
employers; and, in that the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees were otherwise
reckless, careless and negligent.
12
83) That the aforesaid occurrence, to wit: the improper and insufficient training, false
arrest and imprisonment, resulting injuries to mind and body there from were caused wholly and
solely by reason of the negligence of the Defendant, its agents, servants and employees without
any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.
84) That by reason of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff was injured in Mind and Body, still
rendered emotionally and mentally distressed and so remains.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF NADINE BROWN
NEGLIGENCE IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES:
every preceding paragraph 1-84 of this Summons and Complaint as though fully plead andre-
86) That on or about February 16,2012, Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN (Hereinafter
produced same for Plaintiffs examination.
station.
13
Station
entered same.
beside plaintiff.
98) That the Police began to search Plaintiff's place of business.
101) That the Police searched the locker belonging to Alexander Clinton, and found,
they alleged, a plastic bag containing marijuana.
14
I 02) That the Police also searched the lockers belonging to Plaintiff and Kerry-Ann
Henry and found no contraband, including but not limited to no marijuana.
I 03) That despite not finding any marijuana in Plaintiffs locker or her person or
anywhere else other than in the two lockers belonging to other work station renters, Plaintiff was
arrested, cuffed and taken to an unmarked Police van located on the street outside her place of
business and placed in said crowded van with other persons also similarly cuffed.
104) That plaintiff was made to wait in the van for 45 minutes while she heard police
officers standing outside the van making fun of the whole situation.
I 05) That the Police brought Plaintiff to the 52"d Precinct where she remained till
approximately II :OOpm when she was taken to Central Booking in Bronx County.
106) That Plaintiff remained detained and in Police custody from 3:00pm, Thursday,
February 16,2013 through Saturday, February 18,2012 after 5:00pm, at total of approximately
50 hours.
I 07) That at her arraignment, Plaintiff was charged with possession of marijuana.
I 08) That plaintiff pled not guilty
I 09) That Plaintiff was released on her own Recognizance
II 0) That Plaintiff has been back to court at least three additional times.
111) That the charges are still pending against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff continues to
Plead not guilty and intends on continuing to plead not guilty to all any criminal charges
connected with the aforesaid arrest.
112) That plaintiff is innocent of all subject charges and will amend this complaint to
reflect said dismissal of all charges against her.
15
113) That the Defendants, its agents, servants and employees negligently,
carelessly and recklessly performed their police duties in that they failed to use such care in the
performance of their duties as a reasonably prudent and careful police officer would have used
under similar circumstances; in that they carelessly, recklessly and negligently arrested the
Plaintiff without making a proper investigation; in that they were negligent, careless and reckless
in the manner in which they operated, controlled and maintained their agents, servants, and
employees; and in that the Defendants, their agents, employees and servants were otherwise
negligent, careless, and reckless.
114) That the aforesaid occurrence, to wit: the false arrest and imprisonment,
resulting injuries to mind and body these from, were caused wholly and solely by reason of the
negligence of the Defendant, its agents, servants and employees without any negligence on the
part of the Plaintiff.
115) That by reason of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff was injured in mind and
body, still suffers and upon information and belief, will continue to suffer great mental pain, and
he was rendered emotionally and mentally distressed and so remains.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION:
116) The Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN, hereby incorporates by reference each
and every preceding paragraph 1-115 of this Summons and Complaint as though fully plead and
re-alleged in their entirety below.
117) That on or about February 16, 2012, Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN
(Hereinafter "Plaintiff') was at her place of business, New Appearance Unisex, a hair salon
located at 2603 Webster Avenue, Bronx, NY 10458.
16
119) That the Police claimed that they possessed a search warrant but at no time
hereinafter produced same for Plaintiffs examination.
121) That the Police ordered her to stop working and step to away from her work chair
and station.
122) That Plaintiff complied with the Police's demands and stepped away from her
work Station
123) That Plaintiff was the owner of the business and rented barber or work stations to
three other persons, two of which were also present in Plaintiffs place of business when the
Police entered same.
125) That one of the barber stations was unused and unattended by any worker as said
renter of same, an individual by the name of Raymond Thomas, was off and not working on said
date.
126) That the Police ordered the two other persons who were found in said
establishment and were working thereto, at said time, to step away from their respective work
stations and stand beside plaintiff.
127) That the two other persons who were working at and for Plaintiff thereto, Kerry-
Ann Henry and Clinton Alexander, both complied with the Police order.
17
128) That both Kerry-Ann Henry and Clinton Alexander had their own work-stations,
which among other things consisted of a barber's chair and an accompanying locker.
130) That the Police searched the entire establishment before they began searching the
lockers situated within and or at the individual barber stations.
133) That the Police also searched the lockers belonging to Plaintiff and Kerry-Ann
134) That despite not finding any marijuana in Plaintiffs locker or her person or
136) That the Police brought Plaintiff to the 52nd Precinct where she remained till
approximately 11 :OOpm when she was taken to Central Booking in Bronx County.
50 hours.
18
144) That by reason of the aforesaid unlawful and malicious prosecution and criminal
charges and hearings, the Plaintiff was deprived of her liberty was subjected to great indignity,
pain, humiliation, and great distress of mind and body and was held help up to scorn and ridicule,
was injured in character and reputation, was prevented from attending his usual business and
avocation, was injured in his reputation in the community and the said Plaintiff has been
otherwise damaged.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS:
and every preceding paragraph 1-144 of this Complaint as though fully plead and re-alleged in
their entirety below.
146) That on or about February 16, 2012, Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN
19
hereinafter produced same for Plaintiff's examination.
and station.
work Station
date.
20
165) That the Police brought Plaintiff to the 52"ct Precinct where she remained till
February 16, 2013 through Saturday, February 18,2012 after 5:00pm, at total of approximately
50 hours.
21
173) That the Police negligently, knowingly, recklessly arrested Plaintiff when they
knew she did not commit engaged in conduct that is not expected or to be tolerated in a civilized
society.
174) That such conduct shocks the conscious and Plaintiff demands damages
therefrom.
175) That due to defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff was injured in mind and body, still
rendered emotionally and mentally distressed and so remains.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS:
and every preceding paragraph 1-175 of this Summons and Complaint as though fully plead and
re-alleged in their entirety below.
22
177) That on or about February 16,2012, Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN
and station.
work Station
date.
23
24
50 hours.
204) That due to the Polices' outrageous conduct, Plaintiff was injured in mind and
body, still suffers and upon information and belief, will continue to suffer great mental pain, by
the actions of the Police.
205) That the Police intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caused Plaintiff to be
arrested for a crime they knew she did not commit engaged in conduct that is not expected or to
be tolerated in a civilized society.
206) That such conduct shocks the conscious and Plaintiff demands damages therefrom
207) That this arrest went beyond was be considered reasonable and tolerable in a
civilized society and shocks the conscious of the ordinary citizen. Plaintiff was injured in mind
and body, still suffers and upon information and belief, will continue to suffer great mental pain,
and he was rendered emotionally and mentally distressed and so remains
25
AS AND FOR THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR CIVIL RIGHT ACTION 42 USC §1983:
every preceding paragraph I through 207 of this Summons and complaint as though fully plead
andre-alleged in their entirety below.
Venue and Jurisdiction
209) The jurisdiction is founded upon the existence of a Federal Question.
21 0) That this is an action to redress the deprivation under color of state and/or federal
statue, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of right, privilege, and immunity secured to
Plaintiff by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States
(42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1981, 1985 (3) and arising under the Federal Constitution, statues and laws as
well as the laws and statuses of the State and Constitution of New York.
211) ThatJurisdictionisfounded upon U.S.C § 1331 and§ 1343 (3) and(4), this being
an action authorized by law to redress the deprivation under the color of statue, ordinance,
regulation, custom or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to the Plaintiff by the
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States (42 USC§
1983, 1981, 1985 (3) and arising under the federal constitutional laws and statues as well as the
laws, statues, and constitution of the State ofNew York.
212) The amount in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs are $75,000,
the jurisdictional limits of this and any other court having jurisdiction.
213) The Plaintiff did not commit any illegal act, either before or at the time he was
falsely arrested and imprisoned and deprived of his Constitutional rights as set forth in the
26
Constitution of the United States, particularly 42 USC§ §1981, 1983 and the Constitution of the
State of New York.
every preceding paragraph I -2 I 4 of this Surrunons and Complaint as though fully plead
and re-alleged in their entirety below.
hereinafter produced same for Plaintiff's examination.
and station.
work Station
27
date.
232) That despite not finding any marijuana in Plaintiff's locker or her person or
28
234) That the Police brought Plaintiff to the 52nd Precinct where she remained till
50 hours.
23 7) That plaintiff pled not guilty
reflect said dismissal of all charges against her..
242) Defendant Police Officers by engaging in this unlawful conduct of falsely
arresting Plaintiff for crimes they knew she did not commit all under the color of State
law without a warrant, or probable cause and then falsely arresting and imprisoning
Plaintiff severely deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional rights.
243) Defendant, Police Officers JOHN/JANE DOES 1-4 accordingly deprived
29
Plaintiff of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Further, as police officers
employed by Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, said Defendant Police Officers were
acting under the color of State law when they violated Plaintiffs rights.
244) That the aforementioned misuse of authority and power by Defendants Police
Officers JOHN/JANE DOES 1-4 all of which was tolerated and condoned by the City of
New York through its Police Commissioner, Raymond Kelly and Mayor Michael Bloomberg
was utterly egregious and shocking to the conscience. As a direct result, Plaintiff was caused
to undergo the humiliation and indignities resulting from his unlawful confinement against
will; and was caused and will continue to undergo and endure severe mental anguish,
humiliation and economic hardship as a consequence thereof.
245) Such deprivation were in violation of the rights secured to Plaintiff by the First,
Fourth, Fourteenth Amendments of the United States constitution and by Title 42
U.S.C.A. § 1983. And the laws, ordinances and statues of the State ofNew York to wit:
a. Defendants' actions in illegally Plaintiff's store without a warrant, conducting a
warrantless search of the store and all persons found within the store was pursuant
to policies and procedures of the NYPD which condoned these illegal searches.
The police fully understood that they had the approval of the Mayor of the Police
Commissioner to engage in these improper and illegal searches of the store.
b. The Defendants, their agents, servants and employees, wrongfully and falsely
arrested, imprisoned and detained the Plaintiff without any right, privilege or
grounds.
c. The arrest and imprisonment was not justified by probable cause or other legal
privilege; Defendants, their agents, servants and employees, acting under the
30
color oflaw and under authority of their Office as Police Officers for the city
falsely arrested the Plaintiff knowing that the Plaintiff had not violated any part of
the New York State Penal Law.
d. That the Defendant, their agents, servants and employees failed to adequately and
properly hire, retain, supervise, discipline or in any other way control the behavior
and performance of the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees
e. That Defendants, their agents, servants and employees is in their failure to enforce
the laws of the state of New York did act with reckless disregard to Plaintiffs
rights in that they did not exercise that degree of due care which prudent and
reasonable individuals would show in executing the duties of the Defendants.
f. That Defendant, their agents, servants and employees in their failure to hire, train,
supervise and discipline or in any other way control the Defendants in the
exercise of their functions to enforce the law of the state and CITY OF NEW
YORK, did act willfully, wantonly, maliciously and with such reckless disregard
for the consequences as to display a conscious disregard for the dangers of harm
and injury to the citizens of the state of New York including Plaintiff.
g. That the acts of the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees relative in
failing to properly discipline, hire and train their employees, agents and servants
is a presents a clear and present danger to the citizens of the City and State of
New York.
246) As a result of the aforesaid Defendants' deprivation of Plaintiffs civil rights,
Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
31
24 7) The Defendants, their agents, servants and employees, wrongfully and falsely
arrested, imprisoned and detained the Plaintiff without any right, privilege or grounds.
248) The arrest and imprisonment was not justified by probable cause or other legal
privilege or grounds. Defendants their agents, servants and employees, acting under the color of
law and under authority of their office as Police Officers for the city falsely arrested the Plaintiff
knowing that the Plaintiff had not violated any part of the New York State Penal Law.
249) That by their wanton conduct, Defendants showed a blatant disregard for
Plaintiffs Constitutional rights.
250) That the Plaintiff demands attorney fees should he prevail in his 42 USC Section
1983 claims against the individually named police officers and CITY OF NEW YORK.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION

CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION 42 USC §§ 1985(3):
251) The Plaintiff, ,NADINE BROWN, hereby incorporates by reference each and
every preceding paragraph 1-250 of this Complaint as though fully plead andre-alleged in their
entirety below.
32
25 5) That at said time Plaintiff was weaving the hair of one of her clients.
and station.
work Station
date.
33
50 hours.
34
279) The Plaintiff did not commit any illegal act, either before or at the time she was
falsely arrested and imprisoned and deprived of her Constitutional rights as a result of this
conspiracy by the NYPD arresting officers.
280) That at all times hereinafter mentioned , the Defendants Police Officers
JOHN/JANE DOES 1-4 each of them, separately and in concert conspired for the purpose of
depriving, either directly or indirectly, Plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal
privileges and immunities under the laws in that said Defendants did engage in the illegal
conduct hereinbefore described and thus did deprive the Plaintiff of the equal protection of the
laws, or of equal privileges and immunities secured to Plaintiff by the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the Laws of the United States. The
unlawful and illegal conduct of the Defendants deprived the Plaintiff of the following rights,
privileges and immunities secured to him by the Constitution of the United States and the State
ofNewYork:
a. The right of the Plaintiff to be secure in their persons and effects against
unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the Constitution of the United States
35
b. the right of the Plaintiff to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him so secured to them under the sixth and fourteenth amendments of the
Constitution of the United States; and,
c. the right of the Plaintiff not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, and the right to the equal protection of the law secured by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
281) That by reason of the aforesaid violations, false arrest, and false imprisonment,
and battery and otherwise discriminatory treatment in violation of both the United States and
New York State Constitutions, the Defendants conspired together to enter into a nefarious
scheme to wrongfully deprive the Plaintiff and compelled her to abandon her rights and
privileges as provided to her in the Constitutional rights as set forth in the Constitution of the
State of New York, and laws thereto, the Defendants, violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 (3)
in that the Defendants acted as persons who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom or usage of the CITY OF NEW YORK, subjected or caused to be subjected, a citizen of
the Unite States or other person within the jurisdiction, particularly the Plaintiff thereof to be
deprived of his rights, privileges or immunities received by Constitution of the United States of
America, and provided them by the Constitution of the State of New York; were subjected to
Great indignities and humiliation, and pain and distress of mind and body and was held up to
scorn and ridicule, injured in her character and reputation, was prevented from attending her
usual business and vocation and was injured in her reputation in the community and the acts
aforementioned were committed with the aim of injuring and damaging the Plaintiff.
282) That by reason ofthe aforesaid violations, to wit the false arrest, false
imprisonment caused by the Defendants, who wrongfully deprived the Plaintiff and compel her
36
to abandon her rights and privileges as provided to her in the Constitution of the United States of
America, and in the Constitution of the United States of America, and in the Constitution of the
State of New York, and laws thereto, the Defendants, acting within the scope of their authority
and without any probable cause, caused the Plaintiff great harm because of the aforesaid illegal
conduct.
AS AND FOR THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

ON BEHALF OF NADINE BROWN
FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURUSANT TO 42 USC SECTION 1988:
283) The Plaintiff, ,NADINE BROWN, hereby incorporates by reference each and
every preceding paragraph 1-282 of this Summons and Complaint as though fully plead andre-
284) Should Plaintiff be victorious he intends to assert a claim for attorney fees on his
federal claims pursuant to 42 USC section 1983, 1981, 1985(3) et seq.
AS AND FOR THE TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

ON BEHALF OF JEAN GRAHAM
FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION PURUSANT TO 42 USC SECTION 1981:
every preceding paragraph 1-284 of this Complaint as though fully plead andre-alleged in their
entirety below.
286) That on or about February 16,2012, Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN (Hereinafter
37
and station.
work Station
date.
38
50 hours.
31 0) That Plaintiff has been back to court at least three additional times.
39
313) Plaintiff asserts that her arrest was motivate solely as a result of the animus of the
white police officers based upon her race, being black. That white citizens are not treated in the
same manner as black citizens.
314) That by reason of the aforesaid violations, the Plaintiff requests the following
relief:
a. Compensatory damages in the sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all
lower courts.
b. Punitive damages where permitted in the sum which exceeds the jurisdictional
limits of all lower courts.
c. An award of reasonable attorney's feed, costs and disbursements;
d. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all issues involved in this complaint;
e. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, meet and proper under
the circumstances.
Dated: May 16 2013,

R zrali Esq,
78-27 37th Avenue, #9
Tel: (646) 331-9378
40
•
Attorney Verification
STATE OF NEW YORK )

)
COUNTY OF QUEENS )
Rehan Nazrali Esq, being first duly sworn hereby deposes and affirms that:
I. I am the Plaintiffs Attorney in the within Action

2. I am over eighteen years of age and reside in Queens County of the City of
New York
3. That pursuant to CPLR Section 3020, on account of the fact the Plaintiff
resides in a different County than that where my office is located, to wit
Bronx County, I am verifYing this complaint
4. That I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the
State of New York, hereby affirms under the penalties ofpeijury and pursuant
to CPLR section 2106 that I have read the foregoing Summons and Complaint
and know the contents thereof, and that upon information and belief the same
are true. The sources of your affirmants information and belief are oral
statements, books and records furnished by the Plainiff and material contained
in the office files.
Dated: May 16,2013

Jackson Heights, NY
Ii Esq
.'

COUNTY OF BRONX
NADINE BROWN
Plaintiff,
Index No:
SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, CITY OF NEW YORK

POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICE OFFICERS JOHN AND/OR
JANE DOE NUMBERS 1-4
Defendants.
REHAN NAZRALI, ESQ.

Attorney(s) for the PLAINTIFF
78-27 37'h Ave #9
Jackson Heights, NY 11372,
Tel. (646)331-9378
To: ALL COUNSEL

Attorney(s) for
THE DEFENDANTS:
Service of a copy of the within SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
RONALD PAUL HART, ESQ.
NOTICE OF ENTRY
that the within is a (certified) true copy of a
duly entered order in the office of the clerk of the within named court on
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
that an order for of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the
HON. one of the justices of the within named Court at the within is a (certified) true copy of
a duly entered
41

NADINE BROWN Complaint Iied

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NADINE BROWN Complaint Iied

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FILED May 17 2013 Bronx County Clerk Index Number: 303170-2013

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY

Dated: New York, NY 10007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

-against- VERIFIED COMPLAINT

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY

this Court and allege as follows:

1) That the Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN (Hereinafter "Plaintiff') is present~a

officers thereof, including defendant Police Officers JOHN/JANE DOES 1-4.

Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, as police officers.

State ofNew York.

said state, City and County.

II) The amount in controversy is $100,000 exclusive of interest.

PENDANT STATE CLAIMS:

OF NEW YORK on the 16'h day of May 2012.

the Defendant, C!TY '-lfNew York.

AS AND FOR :FIRST CAUSE OF" ACTlO!'.

a\leged m their er,tirety bebw.

Webster Avenue, E>rc>J1X, t, Y I 0458.

business and announced themselves.

produced same for Plaintiffs examination.

among other things consisted of a barber's chair and an accompanying locker.

27) That the Police began to search Plaintiff's place of business.

situated within and or at the individual barber stations.

alleged, a plastic bag containing marijuana.

alleged, a plastic bag containing marijuana.

found no contraband, including but not limited to no marijuana.

standing outside the van making fun of the whole situation.

37) That Plaintiff pled not guilty.

38) That Plaintiff was released on her own Recognizance

the aforesaid arrest.

said dismissal of all charges against her.

performance of the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees.

including, in this instance, the Plaintiff.

their police department individuals whose backgrounds contained information (based

careless, negligent, and reckless.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

alleged in their entirety below.

Webster Avenue, Bronx, NY 10458.

business and armounced themselves.

produced same for Plaintiff's examination.

among other things consisted of a barber's chair and an accompanying locker.

61) That the Police began to search Plaintiffs place of business.

situated within and or at the individual barber stations.

alleged, a plastic bag containing marijuana.

alleged, a plastic bag containing marijuana.

found no contraband, including but not limited to no marijuana.

standing outside the van making fun of the whole situation.

71) That plaintiff pled not guilty

72) That Plaintiff was released on her own Recognizance

the aforesaid arrest.

said dismissal of all charges against her.

performance of the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees.

including, in this instance, the Plaintiff.

their police department individuals whose backgrounds contained information (based

careless, negligent, and reckless.

proper instruction as to their deportment, behavior, and conduct as representatives of their

reckless, careless and negligent.

any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

rendered emotionally and mentally distressed and so remains.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

alleged in their entirety below.

86) That on or about February 16,2012, Plaintiff, NADINE BROWN (Hereinafter